Why should we expect the legal system to be eager to adopt the
results of scientific studies in its procedures? This is the same legal
system, after all, that has proven incapable of any coherent position on
the admissibility and meaning of DNA testing and other scientific
evidence. Even the most rock-solid scientific evidence can be effectively
contested in a courtroom, and any police department that modifies its
long-standing procedures is asking for trouble from sharp defense
attorneys.

The reality is that the intellectual principles behind the law -- deference
to precedent, syllogistic reasoning, prizing human testimony over physical
evidence -- are fundamentally hostile to the kind of information science
provides. In order for scientific experimentation to transform the
justice system, the justice system will need first to understand what
science can and cannot do, a shift that would be far more subtle and
far-reaching than merely tinkering with the size of a jury or the format
of a lineup. Until then, these "simple" changes will be doomed to
failure.

Version 2:

Why should Gawande expect the legal system to be eager to adopt the results of
scientific studies? This is the same system, after all, that has proved
incapable of any coherent position on the admissibility and meaning of DNA and
other scientific evidence. A good lawyer can effectively contest even the most
rock-solid scientific proofs, and any police department that experimented with
procedures in the way Gawande suggests would be inviting challenges from defense
attorneys. In order for the justice system to be transformed by science, it
would first need to recognize how its own intellectual principles -- deference to
form and precedent, syllogistic reasoning, the prizing of human testimony -- can be
hostile to the truth.

Version 3:

Why should Atul Gawande expect the legal system to be eager to adopt new,
scientifically tested methods? This is a system, after all, that has proved
incapable of a clear position on the admissability and meaning of DNA.
A good lawyer can effectively contest even rock-solid scientific
evidence, and any police department that experimented with its procedures
woud be inviting challenges from defense attorneys. For the justice system
to be transformed by science, it first needs to recognize how its own
intellectual principles -- deference to form and precedent, syllogistic reasoning,
the value placed on witness testimony -- can be hostile to the truth.